Why Doesn't President Obama Call in National Guard to stop Occupy protestors from closing Port of Oakland?

President Obama took an oath to support and follow the Constitution and all laws. Why, then, does he not call in the National Guard, to stop the illegal activities of the Occupy protestors who once again have shut down the Port of Oakland, stoping interstate commerce which the Federal Government has jurisdiction over? Answer: Because the Occupy protestors are funded and made up of mostly liberal Democrats and their allies. If the Tea Party did the same exact thing, does anyone doubt that President Obama would immediately call in the National Guard?

This illegal activity by the Occupy protestors also appears to be in violation of the RICO laws that were enacted to stop organized criminal activities. Instead of keeping the oath he took and sending in the National Guard to stop this illegal activity that is costing us taxpayers millions of dollars every day, he spends his time going on 60 Minutes to campaing for his re-election.

How can anyone justify his absolute inactivity? Think about the struggling truck driver who can not get his perishable goods through the port due to the illegal activities of the Occupy protestors, and how it affects him, his family, and his customers?

Enough is enough. Our country may disagree on budget issues, foreign policy and the like, but surely we all agree that a government that does not enforce the laws, and lets large scale criminal activity go on and on, is a major threat to us all.

Apparently, the only way we can deal with this threat to our country is by voting President Obama out of office and electing anyone who will at least see to it that laws are enforced, regardless of what political party the criminals belong to.

This story contains 289 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
logged in.
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
click here
to get your online account activated.

Posted by TL Nelson
a resident of Danville
on Dec 13, 2011 at 10:20 pm

I agree. History shows that the first stage in the collapse of a society or nation is when the government is no longer willing or able to enforce the law. In the case of the "Occupy" protestors, when the police have tried to enforce the law, it is the police who are criticized, not the criminals.

In Oakland and many other cities across the USA, we have lawless mobs roaming our streets and violating the law with impunity. No citizen's life or property is safe. When the "Occupy" protestors come to occupy my home and destroy my property, they will be met with something stronger than pepper spray.

The United States since its founding has been a nation of laws. The Occupy (Whatever) is an attempt at mob rule. When a nation ignores its laws for mob rule it has started down a slippery slope towards anarchy!

Posted by denise
a resident of Walnut Creek
on Dec 14, 2011 at 9:23 am

Do people that support "OCCUPY" realize what it means?
I lived through the occupation in Europe, I know what it means, that how it starts, you let the mob rule, then a leader is born, then you loose your liberty. Is this a beginning of civil war?
Allowing the mob to dictate is dangerous. They call themselves 99%, I think they are 1% that may have good intentions, but the rest, the 99% of them,are drug addicts,drop outs,and a lazy mob.
Now we have to pay for the clean up, extra police, and honest people that want to work have their life disrupted.

Posted by Watching the Watcher
a resident of another community
on Dec 14, 2011 at 11:51 am

Turning the National Guard on a protest you don't agree with? Are you people for real?

Were there similar calls when the Tea Party was protesting with hateful commentary?

What policy or law has changed in the US resulting from the OWS movement? You insist they are dictating, so what have they accomplished which you consider controlling your lives?

Freedom of speech is a protected right. Picking and choosing who gets to exercise it puts us on the slippery slope and I would contend people suggesting such crackdowns are a much larger threat to our democracy than any OWS event.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi

"Farmer Dave": You think President Obama has no role in a mob illegally shutting down the Port of Oakland? What do you think a Port does? The Federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce, and the Port of Oakland is one of the largest international ports of international commerce in the world. It is similar to a criminal mob shutting down an Airport, involving interstate commerce, where the Federal government has jurisdiction, not the local county, city, or state.

"Watching the Watcher": Decades of U.S. Supreme Court case decisions, make it clear that freedom of speech is not unlimited, as there is a proper place, manner, and time restrictions, such as no right to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre. If the occupy protestors want to lawfully stand in front of wall street offices and protest, they have the absolute right to do so. But when they criminally and forcibly shut down a major U.S. Port, they lose that right.

This is not about trying to attack President Obama. I would feel the same if President Bush or any other President stood by and did nothing when a criminal mob illegally on several occasions shut down a major U.S. shipping Port, with no consequences to the criminals.

Posted by Citizen Paine
a resident of Danville
on Dec 14, 2011 at 2:19 pm

Why? Because he's not a moron, that's why.

This country has a great deal more to fear from the over-reactions of jackbooted reactionaries than it does from movements like Occupy, regardless of the preposterous hyperbole invested in miss-characterizing that movement by those who would squelch dissent.

I went to a town hall meeting way back when the tea party types were in full force. They stood up and yelled for so long that it was clear that the rest of us would not be able to ask questions. I was annoyed - one of them told me that the speaker would try to mislead us with their answer. My thought (unspoken) was that if they could figure out that the answer was misleading, it was a no-brainer that the rest of us could as well. I call 'em like I see 'em.

I appreciate the fact that when the Occupy movement folks interrupt a meeting, it is short and they make sure they state this prior to the interruption.

Posted by Watching the Watcher
a resident of another community
on Dec 14, 2011 at 4:04 pm

@Danville, OWS has also been critical of the Obama Admin, hence the belief by some this is the precursor to a third party formation. Don't know where you got the idea Obama was orchestrating, but you're horribly mistaken.

I'm aware of the limitations of free speech, but thanks for the slant. I should have recognized it with the first mention of "criminal mob".

Posted by frustrated conservative
a resident of John Baldwin Elementary School
on Dec 15, 2011 at 4:08 pm

I don't think it's Obama's responsibility to deal with the Port of Oakland, but I'm sure he wouldn't do anything about it if it was. For the very same reason, Jerry Brown won't do anything about it, or Jean Quan.

The oval office, the state of CA and the City of Oakland are all in power because of the labor unions and the labor unions have taken over the occupy movement providing funding and organization. Also, the occupy movement's main goal which is "anti capitalism" is the real goal of the unions and the democrat party.

It is all very convenient that the liberal liberal media who happens to agree with their agenda gives them way too much coverage and acts like they have some real justified purpose rather than to just have a welfare-supported party in defiance of business owners and people who work 40 hour weeks.